Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Ben, once again, you assert the existence of a being with infinite power and infinite wisdom that supposedly created everything yet you cannot provide one iota of factual evidence to support the assertion. I reject your assertion due to that lack. The BoP is yours alone since you make the assertion. It's rather simple.

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Ben, once again, you assert the existence of a being with infinite power and infinite wisdom that supposedly created everything yet you cannot provide one iota of factual evidence to support the assertion. I reject your assertion due to that lack. The BoP is yours alone since you make the assertion. It's rather simple.

Then agnosticism is the correct position to hold until you can show good reasons to believe that the premise "God exists" is not true.

I can say "the Wingandu tribe exists in Afrca"

You ask "Where's your proof"

I say "I have none":

You conclude "the Wingandu tribe DOES NOT exist in Africa."

This is logically fallacious. Absent of evidence the claim remains unknown.

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Ben, once again, you assert the existence of a being with infinite power and infinite wisdom that supposedly created everything yet you cannot provide one iota of factual evidence to support the assertion. I reject your assertion due to that lack. The BoP is yours alone since you make the assertion. It's rather simple.

Then agnosticism is the correct position to hold until you can show good reasons to believe that the premise "God exists" is not true.

I can say "the Wingandu tribe exists in Afrca"

You ask "Where's your proof"

I say "I have none":

You conclude "the Wingandu tribe DOES NOT exist in Africa."

This is logically fallacious. Absent of evidence the claim remains unknown.

If you have no evidence to support your assertion it is logical to conditionally reject it, pending further information. That's exactly how I feel about any assertion that any god or gods exist. There is no supportive factual data, hence I conditionally reject the assertions pending any new evidence. Take into consideration that holy books are supposed to be sacrosanct and unchanging, there is little likelihood of new evidence unless one of these supposed gods makes a public appearance. Agnosticism is functionally almost identical to atheism. I worship no god or gods, I do not accept supernatural explanations, and I hold no belief in any god's existence, pending new evidence. Given that definition, even agnosticism is atheism since the term means no belief in a god or gods.

So, Ben, do you have any factual evidence to support your assertion that a god or gods exist?

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Ben, once again, you assert the existence of a being with infinite power and infinite wisdom that supposedly created everything yet you cannot provide one iota of factual evidence to support the assertion. I reject your assertion due to that lack. The BoP is yours alone since you make the assertion. It's rather simple.

Then agnosticism is the correct position to hold until you can show good reasons to believe that the premise "God exists" is not true.

I can say "the Wingandu tribe exists in Afrca"

You ask "Where's your proof"

I say "I have none":

You conclude "the Wingandu tribe DOES NOT exist in Africa."

This is logically fallacious. Absent of evidence the claim remains unknown.

If you have no evidence to support your assertion it is logical to conditionally reject it, pending further information.

No, if there is no evidence to support an assertion it's logical to be left unknown pending further information for exactly the reasons described with the African tribe example. I'll ask you right now: do you believe a tribe named Wingandu exists in Africa?

That's exactly how I feel about any assertion that any god or gods exist. There is no supportive factual data, hence I conditionally reject the assertions pending any new evidence. Take into consideration that holy books are supposed to be sacrosanct and unchanging, there is little likelihood of new evidence unless one of these supposed gods makes a public appearance. Agnosticism is functionally almost identical to atheism. I worship no god or gods, I do not accept supernatural explanations, and I hold no belief in any god's existence, pending new evidence. Given that definition, even agnosticism is atheism since the term means no belief in a god or gods.

Agnosticism isn't an ontological claim because they choose to identify with "unknown" rather than siding with the non-existence of God.

So, Ben, do you have any factual evidence to support your assertion that a god or gods exist?

How do you define "factual evidence"? Does it require empirical verification? Failure to provide factual evidence of a claim doesn't mean that the opposite of the claim is true - which is exactly what you're doing.

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Claim: I do not believe in a god.Justification: I have no subjective experiences consistent with the notion that I believe in a god.

Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?

I'm quite certain that if I have no sense of experience of believing in a god, it is correct for me to say that I don't believe in a god. If I say I don't like the taste of pork, that is sufficient justification to meet the burden of proof that I don't like the taste of pork. Would you really say, "I don't believe you, we need a lie detector, an fMRI, and some pork"? Likewise, if I say I don't believe in a god, that should be enough justification to accept the claim that I don't believe in a god. If it isn't, then it goes both ways. You saying you believe in a god is not sufficient justification to accept the claim that you believe in a god.

I know that's not what you're arguing. This is just going to be another thread where people explain to you what "atheism" means, and then in a few weeks you'll forget and repeat the whole thing.

You've been through this debate many times now. Why repeat the same thing over and over again?

Because people still misunderstand it. Cognitive atheism isn't a "default position". It's a choice between theism and atheism. Both, in this case, are ontological claims.

Withholding belief in a claim or its negation is as close to a default position I can think of. Some atheists do believe there is no god. Maybe you should specify that you're talking about them.

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

That last line is the key. Read it carefully. If you believe anything to be true, you are correct, you should have justification. But atheism is not a position of believing anything to be true. It is a lack of a belief in god claims. As such the only justification that I have to make is that I am not convinced.

If I proceed to make the positive assertion that God does not exist, then yes I need justification for that truth claim because I am now asserting something to be true and not simply disbelieving something.

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Claim: I do not believe in a god.Justification: I have no subjective experiences consistent with the notion that I believe in a god.

Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?

I'm quite certain that if I have no sense of experience of believing in a god, it is correct for me to say that I don't believe in a god. If I say I don't like the taste of pork, that is sufficient justification to meet the burden of proof that I don't like the taste of pork. Would you really say, "I don't believe you, we need a lie detector, an fMRI, and some pork"? Likewise, if I say I don't believe in a god, that should be enough justification to accept the claim that I don't believe in a god. If it isn't, then it goes both ways. You saying you believe in a god is not sufficient justification to accept the claim that you believe in a god.

It's a more correct analogy to say "I've never tasted pork. Therefore I don't like pork."

No experience with God = rejection of the position instead of being neutral and unknown.

I know that's not what you're arguing. This is just going to be another thread where people explain to you what "atheism" means, and then in a few weeks you'll forget and repeat the whole thing.

You've been through this debate many times now. Why repeat the same thing over and over again?

Because people still misunderstand it. Cognitive atheism isn't a "default position". It's a choice between theism and atheism. Both, in this case, are ontological claims.

Withholding belief in a claim or its negation is as close to a default position I can think of. Some atheists do believe there is no god. Maybe you should specify that you're talking about them.

A default position is not leaning one way or the other. Any ontological claim requires justification.

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Given that there is some debate about the "real" meaning of atheism, it would be better if you used a more explicit explanation of your position. Rather than simply claiming "atheists", it would be better if you said "Strong atheists" or "Atheists who claim god does not exist". Many people who identify as atheists do not necessarily make the claim that there is no god.

It would prevent the inevitable derailing of people who reject your claim, because it appears to apply to them due to a terminology issue.

Rejection of a claim for failure to fulfill its BoP does not have its own BoP--it's the null position. Asserting the opposition of a claim is different than merely rejecting a claim as unfounded.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Given that there is some debate about the "real" meaning of atheism, it would be better if you used a more explicit explanation of your position. Rather than simply claiming "atheists", it would be better if you said "Strong atheists" or "Atheists who claim god does not exist". Many people who identify as atheists do not necessarily make the claim that there is no god.

It would prevent the inevitable derailing of people who reject your claim, because it appears to apply to them due to a terminology issue.

Rejection of a claim for failure to fulfill its BoP does not have its own BoP--it's the null position. Asserting the opposition of a claim is different than merely rejecting a claim as unfounded.

I did. That was the point of differentiating cognitive from non-cognitive atheism. All cognitive atheists require justification of their view.

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Claim: I do not believe in a god.Justification: I have no subjective experiences consistent with the notion that I believe in a god.

Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?

I'm quite certain that if I have no sense of experience of believing in a god, it is correct for me to say that I don't believe in a god. If I say I don't like the taste of pork, that is sufficient justification to meet the burden of proof that I don't like the taste of pork. Would you really say, "I don't believe you, we need a lie detector, an fMRI, and some pork"? Likewise, if I say I don't believe in a god, that should be enough justification to accept the claim that I don't believe in a god. If it isn't, then it goes both ways. You saying you believe in a god is not sufficient justification to accept the claim that you believe in a god.

It's a more correct analogy to say "I've never tasted pork. Therefore I don't like pork."

You're making an incorrect assumption about what I'm making an analogy to.

No experience with God = rejection of the position instead of being neutral and unknown.

Why should it?

I know that's not what you're arguing. This is just going to be another thread where people explain to you what "atheism" means, and then in a few weeks you'll forget and repeat the whole thing.

You've been through this debate many times now. Why repeat the same thing over and over again?

Because people still misunderstand it. Cognitive atheism isn't a "default position". It's a choice between theism and atheism. Both, in this case, are ontological claims.

Withholding belief in a claim or its negation is as close to a default position I can think of. Some atheists do believe there is no god. Maybe you should specify that you're talking about them.

A default position is not leaning one way or the other. Any ontological claim requires justification.

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Given that there is some debate about the "real" meaning of atheism, it would be better if you used a more explicit explanation of your position. Rather than simply claiming "atheists", it would be better if you said "Strong atheists" or "Atheists who claim god does not exist". Many people who identify as atheists do not necessarily make the claim that there is no god.

It would prevent the inevitable derailing of people who reject your claim, because it appears to apply to them due to a terminology issue.

Rejection of a claim for failure to fulfill its BoP does not have its own BoP--it's the null position. Asserting the opposition of a claim is different than merely rejecting a claim as unfounded.

Alas, there no reason to DISbelieve that the Wingandu is a real tribe in Africa either. Hence, agnosticism.

Russell was an agnostic and his analogy is actually a great refutation of the BoP of atheism in support of agnosticism.

You're not an agnostic Ben. And no the tea pot is not a vehicle to attack atheism, at least soft atheism. Shucks combine the tea pot with Sagan's dragon in the garage (tea pot = dragon, garage = space) and you have the positive claim of God rolled up into a nice big fallacy burrito.

"The annoying kid has a point. Let's revolt in this bitch!" - The Boondocks

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Claim: I do not believe in a god.Justification: I have no subjective experiences consistent with the notion that I believe in a god.

Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?

I'm quite certain that if I have no sense of experience of believing in a god, it is correct for me to say that I don't believe in a god. If I say I don't like the taste of pork, that is sufficient justification to meet the burden of proof that I don't like the taste of pork. Would you really say, "I don't believe you, we need a lie detector, an fMRI, and some pork"? Likewise, if I say I don't believe in a god, that should be enough justification to accept the claim that I don't believe in a god. If it isn't, then it goes both ways. You saying you believe in a god is not sufficient justification to accept the claim that you believe in a god.

It's a more correct analogy to say "I've never tasted pork. Therefore I don't like pork."

You're making an incorrect assumption about what I'm making an analogy to.

I don't believe you unless otherwise explained.

No experience with God = rejection of the position instead of being neutral and unknown.

Why should it?

Why should it what?

I know that's not what you're arguing. This is just going to be another thread where people explain to you what "atheism" means, and then in a few weeks you'll forget and repeat the whole thing.

You've been through this debate many times now. Why repeat the same thing over and over again?

Because people still misunderstand it. Cognitive atheism isn't a "default position". It's a choice between theism and atheism. Both, in this case, are ontological claims.

Withholding belief in a claim or its negation is as close to a default position I can think of. Some atheists do believe there is no god. Maybe you should specify that you're talking about them.

A default position is not leaning one way or the other. Any ontological claim requires justification.

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Given that there is some debate about the "real" meaning of atheism, it would be better if you used a more explicit explanation of your position. Rather than simply claiming "atheists", it would be better if you said "Strong atheists" or "Atheists who claim god does not exist". Many people who identify as atheists do not necessarily make the claim that there is no god.

It would prevent the inevitable derailing of people who reject your claim, because it appears to apply to them due to a terminology issue.

Rejection of a claim for failure to fulfill its BoP does not have its own BoP--it's the null position. Asserting the opposition of a claim is different than merely rejecting a claim as unfounded.

I did. That was the point of differentiating cognitive from non-cognitive atheism. All cognitive atheists require justification of their view.

Your distinction was between those who haven't even considered or who can't consider the question, and those who have/can:

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

That is entirely different than between those who think that the God hypothesis has gone unsupported, and those who assert that it's false.

Incidentally, on the subject of Bertrand Russel (That you were mentioning to another commenter), he too had some issues on the agnostic/atheist distinction:"I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line."

"Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter.... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion."

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

I believe as I have accepted it as truth, what I have chosen to be sufficient evidence is really up to me... I feel there is no burden on me to prove God exists..

In the same way those who chose not to believe have done so on their decision as to what is evidence and what is not, there is no burden on them to prove God does not exist or why they do not believe God exists..

Alas, there no reason to DISbelieve that the Wingandu is a real tribe in Africa either. Hence, agnosticism.

Russell was an agnostic and his analogy is actually a great refutation of the BoP of atheism in support of agnosticism.

You're not an agnostic Ben. And no the tea pot is not a vehicle to attack atheism, at least soft atheism. Shucks combine the tea pot with Sagan's dragon in the garage (tea pot = dragon, garage = space) and you have the positive claim of God rolled up into a nice big fallacy burrito.

I know I'm not. What's your point?

The whole point of the analogy is to show that's nearly impossible to prove a negative. Believing that God doesn't exist without any proof is an impossible task according to Russell. That's the entire reason he was agnostic.

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Claim: I do not believe in a god.Justification: I have no subjective experiences consistent with the notion that I believe in a god.

Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?

I'm quite certain that if I have no sense of experience of believing in a god, it is correct for me to say that I don't believe in a god. If I say I don't like the taste of pork, that is sufficient justification to meet the burden of proof that I don't like the taste of pork. Would you really say, "I don't believe you, we need a lie detector, an fMRI, and some pork"? Likewise, if I say I don't believe in a god, that should be enough justification to accept the claim that I don't believe in a god. If it isn't, then it goes both ways. You saying you believe in a god is not sufficient justification to accept the claim that you believe in a god.

It's a more correct analogy to say "I've never tasted pork. Therefore I don't like pork."

You're making an incorrect assumption about what I'm making an analogy to.

I don't believe you unless otherwise explained.

I was giving an example of why someone stating their mundane subjective experience is usually sufficient for accepting that they have that mundane subjective experience. I was not making an analogy to atheism.

No experience with God = rejection of the position instead of being neutral and unknown.

Why should it?

Why should it what?

Why should those two equate with one another?

I know that's not what you're arguing. This is just going to be another thread where people explain to you what "atheism" means, and then in a few weeks you'll forget and repeat the whole thing.

You've been through this debate many times now. Why repeat the same thing over and over again?

Because people still misunderstand it. Cognitive atheism isn't a "default position". It's a choice between theism and atheism. Both, in this case, are ontological claims.

Withholding belief in a claim or its negation is as close to a default position I can think of. Some atheists do believe there is no god. Maybe you should specify that you're talking about them.

A default position is not leaning one way or the other. Any ontological claim requires justification.

That's what I just said.

Then that isn't atheism. It's agnosticism.

You're using a definition of atheism which is mutually exclusive with agnosticism, which you ALREADY KNOW is not how other people here use the term atheism. Therefore, you should define your usage of the term "atheism" if you're interested in any kind of productive discussion. Or is your goal to just start arguments by making ambiguous claims?

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Given that there is some debate about the "real" meaning of atheism, it would be better if you used a more explicit explanation of your position. Rather than simply claiming "atheists", it would be better if you said "Strong atheists" or "Atheists who claim god does not exist". Many people who identify as atheists do not necessarily make the claim that there is no god.

It would prevent the inevitable derailing of people who reject your claim, because it appears to apply to them due to a terminology issue.

Rejection of a claim for failure to fulfill its BoP does not have its own BoP--it's the null position. Asserting the opposition of a claim is different than merely rejecting a claim as unfounded.

I did. That was the point of differentiating cognitive from non-cognitive atheism. All cognitive atheists require justification of their view.

Your distinction was between those who haven't even considered or who can't consider the question, and those who have/can:

An atheist is anyone who accepts God's non-existence.

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

That is entirely different than between those who think that the God hypothesis has gone unsupported, and those who assert that it's false.

There you have the distinction between agnosticism and atheism. My OP is in reference to atheists.

Incidentally, on the subject of Bertrand Russel (That you were mentioning to another commenter), he too had some issues on the agnostic/atheist distinction:"I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line."

"Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter.... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion."

Since this is a philosophical discussion we should treat it as such. In this case he would identify as an agnostic.

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Ben, once again, you assert the existence of a being with infinite power and infinite wisdom that supposedly created everything yet you cannot provide one iota of factual evidence to support the assertion. I reject your assertion due to that lack. The BoP is yours alone since you make the assertion. It's rather simple.

Then agnosticism is the correct position to hold until you can show good reasons to believe that the premise "God exists" is not true.

I can say "the Wingandu tribe exists in Afrca"

You ask "Where's your proof"

I say "I have none":

You conclude "the Wingandu tribe DOES NOT exist in Africa."

This is logically fallacious. Absent of evidence the claim remains unknown.

If you have no evidence to support your assertion it is logical to conditionally reject it, pending further information.

No, if there is no evidence to support an assertion it's logical to be left unknown pending further information for exactly the reasons described with the African tribe example. I'll ask you right now: do you believe a tribe named Wingandu exists in Africa?

That's exactly how I feel about any assertion that any god or gods exist. There is no supportive factual data, hence I conditionally reject the assertions pending any new evidence. Take into consideration that holy books are supposed to be sacrosanct and unchanging, there is little likelihood of new evidence unless one of these supposed gods makes a public appearance. Agnosticism is functionally almost identical to atheism. I worship no god or gods, I do not accept supernatural explanations, and I hold no belief in any god's existence, pending new evidence. Given that definition, even agnosticism is atheism since the term means no belief in a god or gods.

Agnosticism isn't an ontological claim because they choose to identify with "unknown" rather than siding with the non-existence of God.

So, Ben, do you have any factual evidence to support your assertion that a god or gods exist?

How do you define "factual evidence"? Does it require empirical verification? Failure to provide factual evidence of a claim doesn't mean that the opposite of the claim is true - which is exactly what you're doing.

Ben, there is no real middle ground. If I don't believe it because there is no evidence, then I don't believe it. That stance is subject to change. Do I believe there is a tribe called the Wingandu in Africa? I admit the possibility but I cannot say I believe it. That said, it's a poor analogy because I am aware of many tribes in Africa, the Tutsi, the Hutu, the Ubangi, and others so the possibility of the Wingandu existing is significantly higher than that of any god or gods, since I have no reasonable analog to make it so.

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Claim: I do not believe in a god.Justification: I have no subjective experiences consistent with the notion that I believe in a god.

Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?

I'm quite certain that if I have no sense of experience of believing in a god, it is correct for me to say that I don't believe in a god. If I say I don't like the taste of pork, that is sufficient justification to meet the burden of proof that I don't like the taste of pork. Would you really say, "I don't believe you, we need a lie detector, an fMRI, and some pork"? Likewise, if I say I don't believe in a god, that should be enough justification to accept the claim that I don't believe in a god. If it isn't, then it goes both ways. You saying you believe in a god is not sufficient justification to accept the claim that you believe in a god.

It's a more correct analogy to say "I've never tasted pork. Therefore I don't like pork."

You're making an incorrect assumption about what I'm making an analogy to.

I don't believe you unless otherwise explained.

I was giving an example of why someone stating their mundane subjective experience is usually sufficient for accepting that they have that mundane subjective experience. I was not making an analogy to atheism.

Literally the sentence right before the pork example you said " I'm quite certain that if I have no sense of experience of believing in a god, it is correct for me to say that I don't believe in a god." Then you went on to say that if you don't like the taste of pork it's sufficient proof that you don't like the taste of pork. I pointed out that that would be analogous to disliking pork without ever trying it like disbelieving in God without any experience of him.

No experience with God = rejection of the position instead of being neutral and unknown.

Why should it?

Why should it what?

Why should those two equate with one another?

Because that's the definition of atheism - to not accept the premise "God exists" while accepting the non-existence of the God.

I know that's not what you're arguing. This is just going to be another thread where people explain to you what "atheism" means, and then in a few weeks you'll forget and repeat the whole thing.

You've been through this debate many times now. Why repeat the same thing over and over again?

Because people still misunderstand it. Cognitive atheism isn't a "default position". It's a choice between theism and atheism. Both, in this case, are ontological claims.

Withholding belief in a claim or its negation is as close to a default position I can think of. Some atheists do believe there is no god. Maybe you should specify that you're talking about them.

A default position is not leaning one way or the other. Any ontological claim requires justification.

That's what I just said.

Then that isn't atheism. It's agnosticism.

You're using a definition of atheism which is mutually exclusive with agnosticism, which you ALREADY KNOW is not how other people here use the term atheism. Therefore, you should define your usage of the term "atheism" if you're interested in any kind of productive discussion. Or is your goal to just start arguments by making ambiguous claims?

I'll just ask you a question: is atheism identical to agnosticism?

Atheism is the non-acceptance of the premise "God exists" while accepting the non-existence of God.

Non-cognitive atheism does not. This includes inanimate objects, newborns, other things not capable of a certain level of cognitive awareness, etc.

Cognitive atheism requires a BoP. They require justification of their position just as a theist would.

Whoever makes a CLAIM about a position designates the claimant to have the BoP. Negation of the claim would negate the BoP of the claim, not the justification necessary for holding that position.

So my point is this: regardless of whether or not any claims are being made, justification is required if you hold that position to be true. This includes atheism.

To put it simply, if you believe anything to be true about reality, you require justification.

Ben, once again, you assert the existence of a being with infinite power and infinite wisdom that supposedly created everything yet you cannot provide one iota of factual evidence to support the assertion. I reject your assertion due to that lack. The BoP is yours alone since you make the assertion. It's rather simple.

Then agnosticism is the correct position to hold until you can show good reasons to believe that the premise "God exists" is not true.

I can say "the Wingandu tribe exists in Afrca"

You ask "Where's your proof"

I say "I have none":

You conclude "the Wingandu tribe DOES NOT exist in Africa."

This is logically fallacious. Absent of evidence the claim remains unknown.

If you have no evidence to support your assertion it is logical to conditionally reject it, pending further information.

No, if there is no evidence to support an assertion it's logical to be left unknown pending further information for exactly the reasons described with the African tribe example. I'll ask you right now: do you believe a tribe named Wingandu exists in Africa?

That's exactly how I feel about any assertion that any god or gods exist. There is no supportive factual data, hence I conditionally reject the assertions pending any new evidence. Take into consideration that holy books are supposed to be sacrosanct and unchanging, there is little likelihood of new evidence unless one of these supposed gods makes a public appearance. Agnosticism is functionally almost identical to atheism. I worship no god or gods, I do not accept supernatural explanations, and I hold no belief in any god's existence, pending new evidence. Given that definition, even agnosticism is atheism since the term means no belief in a god or gods.

Agnosticism isn't an ontological claim because they choose to identify with "unknown" rather than siding with the non-existence of God.

So, Ben, do you have any factual evidence to support your assertion that a god or gods exist?

How do you define "factual evidence"? Does it require empirical verification? Failure to provide factual evidence of a claim doesn't mean that the opposite of the claim is true - which is exactly what you're doing.

Ben, there is no real middle ground. If I don't believe it because there is no evidence, then I don't believe it. That stance is subject to change. Do I believe there is a tribe called the Wingandu in Africa? I admit the possibility but I cannot say I believe it. That said, it's a poor analogy because I am aware of many tribes in Africa, the Tutsi, the Hutu, the Ubangi, and others so the possibility of the Wingandu existing is significantly higher than that of any god or gods, since I have no reasonable analog to make it so.

So do you disbelieve it pending further information or do you remain agnostic to the claim pending further information?